Should The Government Seek Donations?

[Sociobiology]

No, that's silly. Just raise taxes if more revenue is required.

Just raise taxes if the EPA needs more money? But... how do you know that the additional revenue won't be spent on defense? What if the reason that that the EPA needs more money in the first place is because congress is giving too much money to the DoD?

because the government is required to and does publish a yearly budget and record of spending.

[Xerographica]

Then in the context of sacrifice, you definition of priority makes no sense. After all, if a person is not presently hungry, sacrificing food is no sacrifice at all.

Haven't you ever been both hungry and tired? If you sleep then you can't eat. And if you eat then you can't sleep. Eating requires the sacrifice of sleeping. Sleeping requires the sacrifice of eating. The opportunity cost of eating is sleeping... and vice versa. Whichever one you choose to do is your most valuable option (MVO).

I don't even know where you're going with this.

Let's review. I said...

Let's say that you're poor. You need new shoes... but you also need food. If food is truly a more important priority to you than new shoes... then wouldn't it be a problem if you communicated to society that shoes and clothes are equally important to you?

You said...

And your priorities are largely immaterial for economic efficiency. For instance, food and water are the highest priority for everyone everywhere at all times.

According to you... a "priority" is something that's always important for everyone. But it should be pretty straightforward that sometimes people spend their money on shoes (X) rather than food (Y). Therefore, in certain circumstances... shoes are sometimes more important than food...

X > Y

I define "priority" as whatever is most important to someone in particular circumstances. Rather than debate whose definition of "priority" is correct... I figured we could just use "most valuable option" (MVO) to refer to whatever it is that it most important to you at any given point in time.

Economic efficiency depends entirely on MVOs. If your MVO is eating... then it would be highly inefficient for you to spend your money on shoes. The trick is... given that nobody is omniscient... we can only know people's MVOs based on their allocation decisions. If you say that you're starving... but then you go shopping for shoes rather than shopping for food... then the only conclusion that I can come to is that shoes are your MVO.

I guess it's probably true that you're really hungry. In fact, I can hear your stomach growling. But if you decide to go spend your money on shoes... then, evidently, your desire for shoes is greater than your desire for food. Your demand for shoes is greater than your demand for food.

Scarcity is a fact of life. If a person is making shoes... then they can't also be making food. The more people we have making shoes... the less people we'll have making food. Arriving at the optimal (most beneficial/valuable) balance depends entirely on people deciding for themselves in their unique circumstances whether shoes or food is their MVO.

No, the free-rider problem is when you benefit from goods, resources, or services and do not pay for them at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

For instance, if you give a fireworks show for money, and I camp out nearby and watch it without paying you, that's a free-rider problem. I'm receiving a service, which costs money to create, while not paying for it.

You linked to the Wikipedia page but you entirely forget to factor in the part that I've underlined...

In economics, the free rider problem occurs when those who benefit from resources, goods, or services do not pay for them, which results in an under-provision of those goods or services.

A fireworks show is a public good... people can benefit from it without having to pay for it. But the free-rider problem is only applicable when inadequate payment results in too few/small fireworks shows.

The optimal supply depends entirely on the true demand. The true demand is people's MVOs... which can only be discerned based on their spending decisions. Which is a problem when it comes to public goods.

The US invading Canada would be a public good. People could benefit from the invasion without having to pay for the invasion. Of course you oppose the invasion of Canada. Therefore, just because something is a public good doesn't mean that it's always equally beneficial for everyone. We can guess that that there's very little true demand for the US to attack Canada. But this guess is derived from the intuition that it really wouldn't be most people's MVO.

Intuitions are useful... but they can never truly be superior to knowing the actual demand.

If I find some shoes that I would be willing to pay $100 for on sale, and then apply a coupon, and get them for $20, that's not a free rider problem. That's me being a thrifty consumer. The free-rider problem is an economic problem. The thrifty consumer is an economic perk. It drives manufacturers to create goods at the same or better quality for continuously cheaper prices. This is a good thing.

It's not a free-rider problem... if your allocation does not result in your preferred shoes being undersupplied.

Let's get back to orchid that I really want on ebay. Right now there aren't any bids on it. So it's entirely possible that I'll be able to purchase it for the starting bid... which is a lot less than I'd be willing to pay for it. Is it the free-rider problem if I pay the starting bid rather than my highest bid? Only if it results in this type of orchid being undersupplied. I really don't want this orchid to be undersupplied. My world will be less wonderful if there's less, rather than more, of this orchid available.

It's easy to understand the immediate effect of buying something...

Cause: I buy the orchid
Effect: I get the orchid

But it's a lot harder to appreciate the secondary effects...

Cause: I buy the orchid
1st Effect: I get the orchid
2nd Effect: More (or less) of this orchid is supplied

The secondary effect depends entirely on the size of the demand. If my "deal" results in less, rather than more, of this orchid being supplied... then I've essentially shot myself in the foot. I lied about how much I value this orchid and, as a result, less of this orchid will be supplied.

Sometimes it's good to sacrifice momentary pleasure for future benefit.

free-rider problem = allocation < valuation

Wrong. Free-rider problem = receiving service/good while not paying

Again, you really missed the part about underprovision. Shortages can occur for all sorts of reasons. But they are likely to occur when our allocations < valuations. If we all consistently say that we value something less than we really do... then why should we suspect that enough of it will be supplied? Again, nobody's omniscient.

forced-rider problem = allocation > valuation

Doesn't even make sense. Allocation > valuation means no transaction takes place because you choose not to engage in it.

I guess you missed the part about taxes being compulsory.

Do you agree with these terms and their definitions?

The terms are fine. Your conclusions are wrong.

I'm glad we agree on the terms at least. But the conclusions are pretty simple cause and effect. If the demand is wrong then the supply will be wrong. Demand is wrong when it doesn't accurately reflect people's true valuations.

No, if you steal food you're a thief. It may have nothing to do with your valuations or everything to do with your valuations. You may VALUE the food high enough to pay for it, but not have the means to do so. If you are stealing it, it's because you're desperate to survive. Indeed, the thief may actually show a higher valuation of the food than the people with money to purchase it, because they're willing to risk imprisonment to get it. Risking imprisonment is a very high cost.

If I steal food from you because I'm desperate to survive and have absolutely no money... then...

allocation < valuation

If, on the other hand, I steal food from you even though I could have paid for it... then...

allocation < valuation

If a market is large enough then one person stealing one sandwich isn't going to make a dent in the supply. But if too many people come to the same conclusion and act accordingly... then a dent will be made in the supply and it will be detrimental. Again, it's simple cause and effect.

Except by your cockeyed valuation concept that we should always pay what we value something, rather than what we can get it it, food will always BE oversupplied, as food and water are the most important things for humanity.

I don't even know where you're going with this.

Just because food and water are very important... it doesn't necessarily mean that they will always be the most valuable options (MVOs). The most beneficial balance of resources depends entirely on people MVOs.

Do you evenly distribute your money? Of course not. You administer the rationality test... and, given that you unevenly distribute your money, evidently some people score a lot higher on your rationality test than other people.

No, I administer the "do I want to buy this shit?" test.

What's the difference between the "do I want to buy this shit?" test and the "rationality" test? I have a few extra Tillandsia aeranthos. Want to buy them? No? So I failed your "do I want to buy this shit?" test. Evidently I failed to make something that you are willing to buy. From your perspective... I'm doing less than useful things with society's limited resources. And I don't think it's a real stretch to say that doing less than useful things with society's limited resources is less than rational.

Maybe you want to argue that everything that everybody does with society's limited resources is equally rational? People are equally rational?

Maybe you'll admit that people aren't equally rational. So perhaps you want to argue that there isn't a positive correlation between rationality and income?

Democracy is the dumb idea that people are equally rational. And we'll continue to suffer the consequences of this dumb idea until we admit to ourselves that people are not equally rational.

Like I said, if you want to get into the details of the sacrifice and why it was the way it was, you can make a thread about it and I'll be glad to explain it to you.

Uh, what would the title of the thread be?

Fucking absurd, right? You should pay him or her to properly express how you feel.

Definitely if you had really really good sex. That deserves payment. Amidoinitrite?

If somebody gives you really really good sex... and you want to avoid losing that person to the competition... then it would behoove you to ensure that your allocation equals your valuation. Failing to adequately communicate your valuation could have adverse consequences. You might find yourself suffering from a severe shortage of really really good sex.

So hold up. If I engage in an unhelpful sacrifice, that's waste, yes?

I consider your micropayments to be unhelpful. Therefore, it is waste. Why are you trying to promote waste?

Again, benefit is in the eye of the beholder. Your rationality test isn't the same as my rationality test. Your preferences/circumstances aren't the same as my preferences/circumstances. If everybody was the same then markets would be pointless. Everybody is different... which means that markets are necessary.

If you care about the environment... and you sacrifice some money to the EPA... but the EPA doesn't protect the environment... then you wasted your money.

Do you want to waste your money?

No. That's why I'll never get behind your stupid micro-payments idea. It's waste.

A micro-payment is just a small payment. So if small payments are a stupid idea... then payments in general are a stupid idea. Payments aren't a stupid idea because sometimes people do beneficial/rational things with society's limited resources. Here we are because Max Berry did something beneficial/rational with society's limited resources. It's a given that some benefits are smaller than other benefits. In fact, there's a continuum of benefit sizes ranging from vanishingly small to impossibly large. A lot of really small benefits can add up to a very large benefit. I'm sure you'd be pretty happy if each and every person in the world paid you a penny. Hence the value of micropayments.

I seriously still have no problem with throwing a donate button up on the website. It's cheap, easy, and doesn't really harm anything.

I'm glad that you agree that the EPA should have a donate button on its website. How can we make it happen? Do we call the EPA or the GAO? Perhaps it's better to e-mail so that we can have a written record of their response?

[Coeverden]

There are countries where you voluntarily donate to the public election fund on your tax returns. It is the only example of 'government donation' I can think of.

Edit: And the only downside to making it an option for things is just the ridiculing news cycle.

[Galloism]

Then in the context of sacrifice, you definition of priority makes no sense. After all, if a person is not presently hungry, sacrificing food is no sacrifice at all.

Haven't you ever been both hungry and tired? If you sleep then you can't eat. And if you eat then you can't sleep. Eating requires the sacrifice of sleeping. Sleeping requires the sacrifice of eating. The opportunity cost of eating is sleeping... and vice versa. Whichever one you choose to do is your most valuable option (MVO).

Or you could eat and then go to sleep.

it's really quite easy.

I don't even know where you're going with this.

Let's review. I said...

Let's say that you're poor. You need new shoes... but you also need food. If food is truly a more important priority to you than new shoes... then wouldn't it be a problem if you communicated to society that shoes and clothes are equally important to you?

You said...

And your priorities are largely immaterial for economic efficiency. For instance, food and water are the highest priority for everyone everywhere at all times.

According to you... a "priority" is something that's always important for everyone. But it should be pretty straightforward that sometimes people spend their money on shoes (X) rather than food (Y). Therefore, in certain circumstances... shoes are sometimes more important than food...

No, rather that food does not consume their entire income. This allows them to purchase other things that are lower priority, such as shoes.

For instance, I would never go hungry in order to buy a flat screen TV. Eating is more important than television. However, I only need a certain amount of food, and it does not consume my entire income. Therefore, money can be spent on lower priority item as highest priority items do not consume all income.

Let's think about a person who has $3000 per month income. That person will make sure that certain things are paid for first - these are the highest priority items. that person will make sure they have food, but that may only be $200 per month. They will be absolutely certain they have shelter - mortgage or rent makes no difference. We'll say that $700 per month. They'll be very certain they have utilities. We'll say that's $300 per month. They'll make sure they have clothing. We'll say that's $100 per month. And they'll make sure they have transportation. We'll say that's $100 per month.

These are their highest priority items - the ones that get paid FIRST no matter what. Now, after this person has paid his thrifty amounts for all his highest priority items, he has $1,600 per month left. Now, these amounts can be spent on lower priority items. DirecTV, internet service, that flatscreen TV he's always wanted. An XBox. Going to the movies. Going rollerblading.

Now, what happens if this person loses his job and winds up on unemployment that only pays $1,500 per month? Well, the rent will still be paid, as will the utilities, etc. The difference is the DirectTV will be gone, the movies will be gone, the rollerblading will be gone, etc., because after paying for the highest priority expenses, there is only $100 remaining.

With your insane "we should pay the most for the highest priority things" idea, there would be no such thing as discretionary income, as we would always overpay for the necessities. He would pay extra to rent, food, utilities, because these are the highest priority items. You know this because they are the ones that get paid even when the income drops.

I define "priority" as whatever is most important to someone in particular circumstances. Rather than debate whose definition of "priority" is correct... I figured we could just use "most valuable option" (MVO) to refer to whatever it is that it most important to you at any given point in time.

Doesn't help. If any point the decision is between "shelter" and watching the new star wars, the new star wars will always lose. The person can spend on things that are lower of priority even while maintaining the higher priority preference for rent, utilities, food, etc. Star wars only receives funds when there is excess amounts left over after the necessities are paid.

Economic efficiency depends entirely on MVOs. If your MVO is eating... then it would be highly inefficient for you to spend your money on shoes. The trick is... given that nobody is omniscient... we can only know people's MVOs based on their allocation decisions. If you say that you're starving... but then you go shopping for shoes rather than shopping for food... then the only conclusion that I can come to is that shoes are your MVO.

Economic efficiency depends entirely on efficient trade. This means paying the least you can for the most you can get. It gives incentives for greater efficiency in the market. After all, if I can provide the same good at a lower price than my competitor, people will be drawn to my goods instead. This makes the whole market more efficient, and allows the person to spend greater amounts on other goods.

Your notion that we should always pay at the level we truly value would undermine the efficiency of trade.

I guess it's probably true that you're really hungry. In fact, I can hear your stomach growling. But if you decide to go spend your money on shoes... then, evidently, your desire for shoes is greater than your desire for food. Your demand for shoes is greater than your demand for food.

Scarcity is a fact of life. If a person is making shoes... then they can't also be making food. The more people we have making shoes... the less people we'll have making food. Arriving at the optimal (most beneficial/valuable) balance depends entirely on people deciding for themselves in their unique circumstances whether shoes or food is their MVO.

Thing is, if I had to make a choice not to eat today in order to afford designer shoes, the designer shoes would have to go. Getting three squares a day is more important than designer shoes. Now, if I can afford my three squares AND designer shoes, I may buy the designer shoes. This is because although i always value food more than the shoes, by being efficient in trade, I can afford both.

No, the free-rider problem is when you benefit from goods, resources, or services and do not pay for them at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

For instance, if you give a fireworks show for money, and I camp out nearby and watch it without paying you, that's a free-rider problem. I'm receiving a service, which costs money to create, while not paying for it.

You linked to the Wikipedia page but you entirely forget to factor in the part that I've underlined...

In economics, the free rider problem occurs when those who benefit from resources, goods, or services do not pay for them, which results in an under-provision of those goods or services.

A fireworks show is a public good... people can benefit from it without having to pay for it. But the free-rider problem is only applicable when inadequate payment results in too few/small fireworks shows.

No, it's only applicable when failure of payment results in too few/small fireworks shows.

The optimal supply depends entirely on the true demand. The true demand is people's MVOs... which can only be discerned based on their spending decisions. Which is a problem when it comes to public goods.

Actually, true demand can be determined based on voting and public opinion as well.

After all, people wouldn't demand it if they didn't value it.

The US invading Canada would be a public good. People could benefit from the invasion without having to pay for the invasion. Of course you oppose the invasion of Canada. Therefore, just because something is a public good doesn't mean that it's always equally beneficial for everyone. We can guess that that there's very little true demand for the US to attack Canada. But this guess is derived from the intuition that it really wouldn't be most people's MVO.

Intuitions are useful... but they can never truly be superior to knowing the actual demand.

This is why God invented public opinion surveys.

If I find some shoes that I would be willing to pay $100 for on sale, and then apply a coupon, and get them for $20, that's not a free rider problem. That's me being a thrifty consumer. The free-rider problem is an economic problem. The thrifty consumer is an economic perk. It drives manufacturers to create goods at the same or better quality for continuously cheaper prices. This is a good thing.

It's not a free-rider problem... if your allocation does not result in your preferred shoes being undersupplied.

it's not a free rider problem period, because I engaged in a specific trade for a private good. That is, i paid and received what i paid for. You cannot be a free rider if you pay for the good at a mutually agreed upon rate.

Let's get back to orchid that I really want on ebay. Right now there aren't any bids on it. So it's entirely possible that I'll be able to purchase it for the starting bid... which is a lot less than I'd be willing to pay for it. Is it the free-rider problem if I pay the starting bid rather than my highest bid?

No. You paid for it for a mutually agreed upon price, and therefore you are not a free rider. You cannot be a free rider if you pay for a good.

Only if it results in this type of orchid being undersupplied. I really don't want this orchid to be undersupplied. My world will be less wonderful if there's less, rather than more, of this orchid available.

It's easy to understand the immediate effect of buying something...

Cause: I buy the orchid
Effect: I get the orchid

But it's a lot harder to appreciate the secondary effects...

Cause: I buy the orchid
1st Effect: I get the orchid
2nd Effect: More (or less) of this orchid is supplied

The secondary effect depends entirely on the size of the demand. If my "deal" results in less, rather than more, of this orchid being supplied... then I've essentially shot myself in the foot. I lied about how much I value this orchid and, as a result, less of this orchid will be supplied.

Sometimes it's good to sacrifice momentary pleasure for future benefit.

Merely buying it presents demand. deliberately overpaying leads to market inefficiency.

Wrong. Free-rider problem = receiving service/good while not paying

Again, you really missed the part about underprovision. Shortages can occur for all sorts of reasons. But they are likely to occur when our allocations < valuations. If we all consistently say that we value something less than we really do... then why should we suspect that enough of it will be supplied? Again, nobody's omniscient.

Because as long as you are paying for the good, you are demonstrating demand for that good, and if it can be supplied consistently for an amount less than you are willing to pay, how does paying that lesser amount lead to a decrease in demand which causes a decrease in supply?

Answer: it doesn't. You've demonstrated demand by purchasing. Whether you paid $5 or $500 is irrelevant. demand is demonstrated.

Doesn't even make sense. Allocation > valuation means no transaction takes place because you choose not to engage in it.

I guess you missed the part about taxes being compulsory.

We're not talking about taxes. We're talking about donations to government organizations and your hijack into micropayments again. did you forget?

The terms are fine. Your conclusions are wrong.

I'm glad we agree on the terms at least. But the conclusions are pretty simple cause and effect. If the demand is wrong then the supply will be wrong. Demand is wrong when it doesn't accurately reflect people's true valuations.

Demand is never wrong. Either demand exists or it doesn't, and the actual price of the transaction is largely irrelevant to the amount of the demand.

No, if you steal food you're a thief. It may have nothing to do with your valuations or everything to do with your valuations. You may VALUE the food high enough to pay for it, but not have the means to do so. If you are stealing it, it's because you're desperate to survive. Indeed, the thief may actually show a higher valuation of the food than the people with money to purchase it, because they're willing to risk imprisonment to get it. Risking imprisonment is a very high cost.

If I steal food from you because I'm desperate to survive and have absolutely no money... then...

allocation < valuation

No, it means "I don't have any fucking money and biology demands I eat". I could value an apple at $50,000, while the merchant sells it for $1. If I do not have $1, and am desperate for food, I might steal it in order to survive. This has nothing to do with my valuation, but merely inability.

Most people who steal food are desperate for food and can't afford to buy it.

If, on the other hand, I steal food from you even though I could have paid for it... then...

allocation < valuation

If a market is large enough then one person stealing one sandwich isn't going to make a dent in the supply. But if too many people come to the same conclusion and act accordingly... then a dent will be made in the supply and it will be detrimental. Again, it's simple cause and effect.

If lots of people are stealing food to survive to the extent it causes a market dip, we've probably majorly failed to create a proper social safety net to prevent such things. This is outside the market principles we're talking about.

Except by your cockeyed valuation concept that we should always pay what we value something, rather than what we can get it it, food will always BE oversupplied, as food and water are the most important things for humanity.

I don't even know where you're going with this.

Just because food and water are very important... it doesn't necessarily mean that they will always be the most valuable options (MVOs). The most beneficial balance of resources depends entirely on people MVOs.

Which is always the necessities - including food.

No, I administer the "do I want to buy this shit?" test.

What's the difference between the "do I want to buy this shit?" test and the "rationality" test?

One is a question of "do I need paper towels for my kitchen", which is a straight up blind trade. The rationality test is more like when I'm trying to find a broker for my investments. I try to find the most rational person who can work the market to make my investments pay off.

That's a rationality test, and my spending has everything to do with the rationality of the person I am paying. The paper towels has nothing to do with the rationality of the paper company's owners.

I have a few extra Tillandsia aeranthos. Want to buy them? No? So I failed your "do I want to buy this shit?" test.

I don't even know what that is, and can't be arsed to look it up. So, largely, yes, you failed my "do I want to buy this shit?" test.

Evidently I failed to make something that you are willing to buy. From your perspective... I'm doing less than useful things with society's limited resources.

Not at all. I would never buy a rolex either. That being said, it's a useful thing to do with society's resources - making a really awesome watch. I agree that it's a useful item and pretty sweet all around, but it's not for me. I recognize that there are useful things being made that I'm not personally interested in.

Ocean-going shipping vessels are extremely useful for the economy, as are trains, and both very very useful and efficient. I have no interest in purchasing one. It wouldn't serve my interests.

And I don't think it's a real stretch to say that doing less than useful things with society's limited resources is less than rational.

you're making a weird assumption - that just because you or I wouldn't personally buy something, that its production is irrational for societal or market purposes. Indeed, it might be critical to the economy, but not serve our personal interests.

Maybe you want to argue that everything that everybody does with society's limited resources is equally rational? People are equally rational?

No. I thought the pet rock was damn stupid, but I don't have to buy everything that's a good thing for the economy. Some of it is of no use to me, even though it's very useful economically.

Maybe you'll admit that people aren't equally rational. So perhaps you want to argue that there isn't a positive correlation between rationality and income?

You have yet to prove it, and I've never observed it.

Democracy is the dumb idea that people are equally rational. And we'll continue to suffer the consequences of this dumb idea until we admit to ourselves that people are not equally rational.

No, democracy is the really rational idea that autocratic societies are shit. Rule by the people is better than rule by a dictator.

However, since no one can agree who is the most rational, who is best equipped to lead, one man one vote is the least terrible of all the available options.

Like I said, if you want to get into the details of the sacrifice and why it was the way it was, you can make a thread about it and I'll be glad to explain it to you.

Uh, what would the title of the thread be?

Figure it out.

Fucking absurd, right? You should pay him or her to properly express how you feel.

Definitely if you had really really good sex. That deserves payment. Amidoinitrite?

If somebody gives you really really good sex... and you want to avoid losing that person to the competition... then it would behoove you to ensure that your allocation equals your valuation. Failing to adequately communicate your valuation could have adverse consequences. You might find yourself suffering from a severe shortage of really really good sex.

Next time you have good sex with some girl, try to give her a tip. Tell me how it works out in great detail.

This should be fantastic. I'll buy some popcorn and a big gulp before I read it, because the results are likely to be more entertaining than any hollywood movie.

So hold up. If I engage in an unhelpful sacrifice, that's waste, yes?

I consider your micropayments to be unhelpful. Therefore, it is waste. Why are you trying to promote waste?

Again, benefit is in the eye of the beholder. Your rationality test isn't the same as my rationality test. Your preferences/circumstances aren't the same as my preferences/circumstances. If everybody was the same then markets would be pointless. Everybody is different... which means that markets are necessary.

Well, we'll see how our forums work out in the market, whether nationstates will thrive while your micropayments forum withers and dies, or the other way around. If forums are a market (which is a weird notion in of itself), the competition between forums will show the true superiority.

Of course, we're still thriving. Yours hasn't gone well anyway, it seems, because you're back here.

No. That's why I'll never get behind your stupid micro-payments idea. It's waste.

A micro-payment is just a small payment. So if small payments are a stupid idea... then payments in general are a stupid idea.

No, not really. I think pet rocks are a stupid idea, but not all pets are stupid ideas.

Payments aren't a stupid idea because sometimes people do beneficial/rational things with society's limited resources. Here we are because Max Berry did something beneficial/rational with society's limited resources. It's a given that some benefits are smaller than other benefits. In fact, there's a continuum of benefit sizes ranging from vanishingly small to impossibly large. A lot of really small benefits can add up to a very large benefit. I'm sure you'd be pretty happy if each and every person in the world paid you a penny. Hence the value of micropayments.

Well, that would be roughly 70 million dollars, but I don't think each person in the world is going to pay me or you a penny.

i'll be surprised if you wind up with two nickels to rub together.

I seriously still have no problem with throwing a donate button up on the website. It's cheap, easy, and doesn't really harm anything.

I'm glad that you agree that the EPA should have a donate button on its website. How can we make it happen? Do we call the EPA or the GAO? Perhaps it's better to e-mail so that we can have a written record of their response?

Probably a white house petition would be the best way to go. Provided the laws allow donations to the EPA, putting a donate button would be doable via mere direction from the executive.

Edit: as an additional note, I want to point out that you have been using your dollars to support someone who is diametrically opposed to both your micropayments and pragmatarianism. If you can't truly allocate your purchases to reflect your valuations, why should I trust anything you say? Your dollars have been showing the opposite of your words, and according to you, dollars are more accurate of communications than words.

You say you support micropayments and pragmatarianism, but then you use your dollars to support someone who opposes them - namely me. Per your criteria, I am supposed to take your dollar votes more seriously than your verbal protestations.

[Galloism]

There are countries where you voluntarily donate to the public election fund on your tax returns. It is the only example of 'government donation' I can think of.

Edit: And the only downside to making it an option for things is just the ridiculing news cycle.

You know, it's funny that i prepare a couple hundred tax returns a year, professionally. I ask each person if they want to put the $3 into the presidential election campaign fund. It used to be $1, but now it's $3.

In all the years I've been in business, which is quite a few, I have yet to have a single person say yes.

My business partner, who also prepares about a hundred returns a year, has never had one either.

[Empire of Narnia]

I've given money to a foreign government before, but not my own.

[Xerographica]

Demand is never wrong. Either demand exists or it doesn't, and the actual price of the transaction is largely irrelevant to the amount of the demand.

We disagree on the definition of priorities... and we disagree on the definition of the free-rider problem... so I'm guessing that we also disagree on the definition of demand.

This last Saturday I won the ebay auction for the orchid that I really wanted. I paid the starting bid... $18 dollars... but the maximum bid that I entered was $75 dollars. Nobody else bid on the orchid.

What was my demand for the orchid?

1. $18 dollars
2. $75 dollars
3. 1 ballot vote
4. other?

Actually, true demand can be determined based on voting and public opinion as well.

Uh... quick review of your position...

1. Demand is never wrong
2. True demand can be determined based on spending
3. True demand can be determined based on opinion

If somebody asked me whether I wanted the orchid that I purchased... then my answer would be a resounding "YES!!!"

But what does "YES!!!" equal? Does it equal $18 dollars? Does it equal $75 dollars?

Right now you know how much I spent on the orchid. But pretend that you didn't know. You ask me whether I want the orchid and I answer "YES!!!" According to you... my "YES!!!" reflects the true demand. But how are you translating "YES!!!" into a dollar amount? Is each exclamation point worth $9 dollars? Maybe you'll incorrectly guess that each exclamation point is worth $3 dollars.

If you asked for my opinion... then the true demand would be $9 dollars. If you relied on how much I spent... then the true demand would be $18 dollars. But, because demand can never be wrong, the logical conclusion is that $9 dollars and $18 dollars are both the true demand. How can they both be the true demand? They are different demands. Different demands can't both be true. So which one is the true demand?

And if voting is the real true demand... then shouldn't we want to replace all spending with voting?

Next time you have good sex with some girl, try to give her a tip. Tell me how it works out in great detail.

This should be fantastic. I'll buy some popcorn and a big gulp before I read it, because the results are likely to be more entertaining than any hollywood movie.

You might appreciate this...

Depending on their nature, incentives can shift a situation from a social to a monetary frame. Consider a thought experiment: You meet an attractive person, and in due time you tell that person, "I like you very much and would like to have sex with you." Alternatively, consider the same situation, but now you say, "I like you very much and would like to have sex with you, and, to sweeten the deal, I'm also willing to pay you $20!" Only a certain kind of economist would expect your partner to be happier in the second scenario. However, offering $20 worth of (unconditional) flowers might indeed make the desired partner happier. - Uri Gneezy, Stephan Meier, Pedro Rey-Biel , When and Why Incentives (Don’t) Work to Modify Behavior

It's entirely irrational for the partner to be happier in the second scenario. In both cases she is receiving a gift worth $20 dollars.

The message is, as long as you don't give her cash... then you're not paying for sex. Do you think a cop would agree? "Nooooo officer. I wasn't paying for sex! I simply gave her some bitcoins! Everybody knows that the only way that you can pay for sex is when you use dollars!"

Check this out...

[Justice Anthony Kennedy] ignores the fact that polygamy imposes real costs, by reducing the number of marriageable women. Suppose a society contains 100 men and 100 women, but the five wealthiest men have a total of 50 wives. That leaves 95 men to compete for only 50 marriageable women. - Richard Posner, Supreme Court Breakfast Table

Half the ladies be gold diggers? Or maybe all the ladies be gold diggers... but the five wealthiest guys didn't want to spend any money on the ugly ones.

A guy's opinion accurately reflects his true demand for his lady? "Yes, I had sex with your sister... but it's ok because you're the only one that I truly demand!" Is the lady going to believe her guy's actions or his words? I'm pretty sure that any lady with an ounce of rationality would use her guy's actions to gauge his true demand for her.

Yet, here you are arguing that opinion polls and voting accurately reflect true demand.

Since you like the Bible so much... what about the story of Cain and Abel? Cain gave God some fruits and veggies. Abel, on the other hand, gave God a lamb. Which gift did God value more highly? And why did God bother with using sacrifices to gauge demand when an opinion poll would have worked just as well? If God had used an opinion poll then I'm sure that both Cain and Abel would have responded with "YES!!!". God would have equally approved of their answers. Cain wouldn't have been envious of Abel and he wouldn't have killed him.

Even though sacrifice is a central theme of the Bible... here you are arguing that opinions accurately reflect true demand.

How did you arrive at this belief? They sure didn't teach it in any econ class or polisci class that I ever took... and I sure took quite a few of both. Few polisci classes discussed demand... and few econ classes discussed voting. So where did you get the idea that opinions reflect true demand? Is it because reporters and pundits rely so heavily on opinion polls? Perhaps this led you to the belief that speaking and spending are both equally good at revealing the true demand?

[Galloism]

Demand is never wrong. Either demand exists or it doesn't, and the actual price of the transaction is largely irrelevant to the amount of the demand.

We disagree on the definition of priorities...

Yes. I am using this one:

a thing that is regarded as more important than another.

If you cannot afford both food AND DirecTV, then you will make a choice not to take the DirecTV. This makes food a higher priority than DirecTV. However, if you can afford both, there's nothing wrong with having both.

and we disagree on the definition of the free-rider problem...

Yes, I am using this one.

In economics, the free rider problem refers to a situation where some individuals in a population either consume more than their fair share of a common resource, or pay less than their fair share of the cost of a common resource.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fre ... z3n3GHs8ud

In neither case are any of the things we talking about resources in common. When you buy a sandwich, it's YOUR sandwich. You don't have to share with anyone else. This is the definition of a private good. Private goods are not subject to the free rider problem.

so I'm guessing that we also disagree on the definition of demand.

I'm using this one.

demand is the utility for a good or service of an economic agent, relative to his/her income. (Note: This distinguishes "demand" from "quantity demanded", where demand is a listing or graphing of quantity demanded at each possible price. In contrast to demand, quantity demanded is the exact quantity demanded at a certain price. Changing the actual price will change the quantity demanded, but it will not change the demand, because demand is a listing of quantities that would be bought at various prices, not just the actual price.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand

This last Saturday I won the ebay auction for the orchid that I really wanted. I paid the starting bid... $18 dollars... but the maximum bid that I entered was $75 dollars. Nobody else bid on the orchid.

What was my demand for the orchid?

Presumably, you wanted one orchid. That was your demand. Demand is a function of desired movement, not price.

Actually, true demand can be determined based on voting and public opinion as well.

Uh... quick review of your position...

1. Demand is never wrong
2. True demand can be determined based on spending
3. True demand can be determined based on opinion

If somebody asked me whether I wanted the orchid that I purchased... then my answer would be a resounding "YES!!!"

But what does "YES!!!" equal? Does it equal $18 dollars? Does it equal $75 dollars?

Right now you know how much I spent on the orchid. But pretend that you didn't know. You ask me whether I want the orchid and I answer "YES!!!" According to you... my "YES!!!" reflects the true demand. But how are you translating "YES!!!" into a dollar amount? Is each exclamation point worth $9 dollars? Maybe you'll incorrectly guess that each exclamation point is worth $3 dollars.

If you asked for my opinion... then the true demand would be $9 dollars. If you relied on how much I spent... then the true demand would be $18 dollars. But, because demand can never be wrong, the logical conclusion is that $9 dollars and $18 dollars are both the true demand. How can they both be the true demand? They are different demands. Different demands can't both be true. So which one is the true demand?

And if voting is the real true demand... then shouldn't we want to replace all spending with voting?

No, because that's communism, and we've shown that communism fares poorly with private goods, because there are fewer incentives towards greater efficiency in the market. Your ideas suffer the same problem.

Demand exists in varying levels at varying price points, because it's a measure of goods movement, not of price. Let's use your $75 example. You were WILLING to pay $75 for a single orchid, but you only had to pay $18 to get what you needed. This leaves $57 left over. Now, you can buy 3 more Orchids (at the 18 dollar price) and still have $3 left to buy a sandwich.

Your demand, at the price point of $75, is one orchid.

Your demand, at the price point of $18, is four orchids plus a sandwich.

These two are not in conflict, because demand is a list of market movements at various price points. By being an efficient consumer, you can actually get more than if you were to actually pay what you are willing to pay.

Put another way - you want a garden full of orchids. Person A sells orchids at $75 a pop, which you are willing to pay. Person B, next door, sells identical orchids at $18 a pop, which is less than you were actually willing to pay. Which is the rational choice for you, person A who makes an inefficient use of society's resources and therefore must sell at a higher price, or person B who is raising orchids more efficiently? However, keep in mind, if you go to person B, you're not using your TRUE valuation. Your allocation is less than your valuation.

Next time you have good sex with some girl, try to give her a tip. Tell me how it works out in great detail.

This should be fantastic. I'll buy some popcorn and a big gulp before I read it, because the results are likely to be more entertaining than any hollywood movie.

You might appreciate this...

Depending on their nature, incentives can shift a situation from a social to a monetary frame. Consider a thought experiment: You meet an attractive person, and in due time you tell that person, "I like you very much and would like to have sex with you." Alternatively, consider the same situation, but now you say, "I like you very much and would like to have sex with you, and, to sweeten the deal, I'm also willing to pay you $20!" Only a certain kind of economist would expect your partner to be happier in the second scenario. However, offering $20 worth of (unconditional) flowers might indeed make the desired partner happier. - Uri Gneezy, Stephan Meier, Pedro Rey-Biel , When and Why Incentives (Don’t) Work to Modify Behavior

It's entirely irrational for the partner to be happier in the second scenario. In both cases she is receiving a gift worth $20 dollars.

The message is, as long as you don't give her cash... then you're not paying for sex. Do you think a cop would agree? "Nooooo officer. I wasn't paying for sex! I simply gave her some bitcoins! Everybody knows that the only way that you can pay for sex is when you use dollars!"

Wow, and now you think of dating like having sex with hookers.

The flowers are not given because they are valuable - they are given because they are beautiful and smell nice. Interpersonal relationships are not a market. Giving flowers is a nice thing to do for someone. I've more often picked flowers out of a field and made a quick bouquet using a bread tie than actually bought them at a store. Not terribly oddly, this usually gets a better reception than one purchased at a store. This is because you're giving of yourself rather than giving of your money.

Slipping them a 20 is payment for services rendered, which makes her feel like a hooker - hence the slapping. It's sort of like if you help a friend move a refrigerator because you're being nice. That's not a market transaction - you are moving it merely as a friend. If you just pay someone to help him move it, it's a market transaction now, and although it's a nice gesture, it doesn't communicate the same level of actual friendship (unless you're handicapped or otherwise flat out unable to move refrigerators).

Check this out...

[Justice Anthony Kennedy] ignores the fact that polygamy imposes real costs, by reducing the number of marriageable women. Suppose a society contains 100 men and 100 women, but the five wealthiest men have a total of 50 wives. That leaves 95 men to compete for only 50 marriageable women. - Richard Posner, Supreme Court Breakfast Table

Half the ladies be gold diggers? Or maybe all the ladies be gold diggers... but the five wealthiest guys didn't want to spend any money on the ugly ones.

A guy's opinion accurately reflects his true demand for his lady? "Yes, I had sex with your sister... but it's ok because you're the only one that I truly demand!" Is the lady going to believe her guy's actions or his words? I'm pretty sure that any lady with an ounce of rationality would use her guy's actions to gauge his true demand for her.

This is not even close to an economics problem. Interpersonal relationships are not subject to market forces.

Yet, here you are arguing that opinion polls and voting accurately reflect true demand.

Sometimes, in certain contexts, they do. In other contexts, they don't. This is called nuance - recognizing that certain things may require different solutions.

Since you like the Bible so much...

Don't know what gave you that idea.

what about the story of Cain and Abel? Cain gave God some fruits and veggies. Abel, on the other hand, gave God a lamb. Which gift did God value more highly? And why did God bother with using sacrifices to gauge demand when an opinion poll would have worked just as well? If God had used an opinion poll then I'm sure that both Cain and Abel would have responded with "YES!!!". God would have equally approved of their answers. Cain wouldn't have been envious of Abel and he wouldn't have killed him.

Once again, you have majorly misunderstood God's motives for rejecting Cain's sacrifice. Hint: it had nothing to do with WHAT was sacrificed. If you want to make a theology thread, I'll be happy to explain it to you.

Even though sacrifice is a central theme of the Bible... here you are arguing that opinions accurately reflect true demand.

How did you arrive at this belief? They sure didn't teach it in any econ class or polisci class that I ever took... and I sure took quite a few of both. Few polisci classes discussed demand... and few econ classes discussed voting. So where did you get the idea that opinions reflect true demand? Is it because reporters and pundits rely so heavily on opinion polls? Perhaps this led you to the belief that speaking and spending are both equally good at revealing the true demand?

Opinion polls CAN accurately reflect true demand in certain contexts, or at least more accurately than money (true demand is sometimes a very hard thing to nail down on a specific number). Sometimes, money does reflect true demand better. This is because spending reveals true demand for private goods very well. It reveals demand for club goods pretty well, less so for common goods, and very poorly for public goods.

This is because the rational consumer pays the least they can while getting the most they can. This drives economic efficiency very well when it comes to private goods, causing the goods to be produced better and better at lower and lower prices as new processes are developed to produce these goods faster, cheaper, and better so as to outsell the other guy. This also helps drive the economy, as when the price of hamburger goes down, then the money available to purchase orchids goes up. This drives further purchasing of orchids, and then as the price of orchids go down, the money available to purchase neckties goes up. Etc.

When it comes to public goods and common goods, this rational consumer outlook breaks down. Because the individual cost is not measured well, then these goods wind up being undersupplied. This is the free rider problem. It also does not happen with private goods.


Edit: Also, note for the audience, he skipped over the part of how he paid me - someone who opposes his ideas - when he built his computer. Shouldn't I take that as a sign that he's opposed to his own ideas? Isn't money more valuable than words? I pointed this out in the last post, but he of course snipped that because it's inconvenient.

[Solansica]

All I can imagine is some poor bureacrat on the 4th of July standing at a storefront with a donation bucket shaped like a Franklin stove. He is wearing a Lady Liberty suit. Every time someone walks by he rings a hand clasp liberty bell and shouts, "Merry Independence!.. ho ho ho!" Meanwhile all the fireworks stands are nationalized with patriot themed firecrackers and all the proceeds going to the military. Since one day a year it isn't enough the fireworks stands are up all year round.

[Trollgaard]

I pay my taxes and get nothing out of it, so yeah, I guess I do.

Hahahaha, that's a laugh!

Do you have firemen? Policemen? EMTs? Roads? Power? Water? etc?

You get something out of your taxes alright.